
.W37 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/compensationforlOOwebs 



/^/ 



^(7 /t : 

COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY LOYAL CITIZENS. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. E. H. WEBSTER, 



OF MARYLAND, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIYES. 



June 19, 18G2. 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

SCAMMELL &. CO., PRINTERS, CORNER OF SECOND STREET k INDIANA AVENUE, THIRD FLOOK 

1862. 



SPEECH. 



The House having under consideration the bill relating to claims for the loss and destruc- 
tion of property belonging to loyal citizens, and damages thereto by the troops of the United 
States, during the present rebellion — 

Mr. WEBSTER said: 

Mr. Speaker: It has been some weeks since this bill was reported to the 
House from the Committee of Claims, but owing to circumstances over which 
the friends of the bill had no control, although a special order, it has been 
necessary to postpone it upon several different occasions. It is now, how- 
ever, before the House for consideration, and I trust that we shall continue 
that consideration until the bill is passed. It is a very important bill to a 
great many people, and especially to those who live in the border States, or 
more properly the central States on both sides of Mason and Dixon's line. 
It is a bill, as its title states, providing for compensation for the loss and de- 
struction of property belonging to loyal citizens, and damages done thereto by 
the ti'oops of the United States, during the preserjt rebellion. 

The Legislature of my State, at its last session, passed a resolution in- 
structing its Senators and requesting its Representatives to use their utmost 
efforts to procure the passage of some such bill as this. The State conven- 
tion of Missouri a few days since passed a similar resolution, and I think the 
Legislature of Kentucky did the same thing ; I know a deep interest is 
felt by the people of that State in the passage of some such measure. 
The use and destruction of property by the Army in these States, as 
well as in others not mentioned, has been immense. Why, sir, on the 
eastern bank of the Potomac river, from one end to the other, is found 
one vast scene of waste and destruction. So, too, beyond the Potomac, in 
Virginia. Such, too, is the fact upon both sides of the Ohio river, and 
especially in the State of Kentucky ; and such is especially the case in the 
State of Missouri. Destruction, of property necessarily followed the military 
occupation of these portions of the country, as it also necessarily followed 
the movement of troops through them. I say necessarily followed, without 
any blame being properly attached to the troops or the officers in command 
of the troops. The Army must have provisions and forage, and frequently 
the commissary and quartermaster cannot furnish them. Grain and grass 
are trampled down by the movements of armies ; buildings are necessarily oc- 
cupied by officers and troops and are injured, and forests are necessarily cut 
down and fences destroyed for fuel for the troops. 

While the loyal people who have suffered these losses do not complain, yet 
they look to the Government to give them that redress which is their right. 
The Government has always furnished the redress which this bill looks to. 
In 1816, after the war with Great Britain, a bill more comprehensive in its 
features than this was passed. I believe, also, a similar bill was passed after 
the Mexican war. Why, sir, the Constitution itself, in that provision which 
declares that " private property shall not be taken for public use without 



just compensation," enunciates the very principle wliicli lies at tlie foundation 
of tins bill. I take it for granted that no gentleman will hold that the Gov- 
ernment is not bound to pay in the cases mentioned in this bill. The ques- 
tion in my mind is not, shall the Government pay in such cases ? but, does this 
bill provide the best machinery by vrhich compensation can be secured to loyal 
sufferers '? 

The provisions of this bill are few and simple. It provides for a commis- 
sion, to be composed of three commissioners, whose duty it shall be to investi- 
gate claims of the nature and character mentioned in the third section of the 
bill, who shall have power to hold their meetings at such places as they may 
deem most convenient for the claimants, and shall report their conclusions and 
awards to the Secretary of War, to be by him reported to Congress. There 
are two other tribunals to which claims of this character might be presented 
under existing laws for adjudication. These are the Committees of Claims 
of the two Houses of Congress and the Court of Claims. Since the meeting 
of Congress this session a great number of claims of this character have been 
presented to that committee of this House ; and it was the knowledge which 
the committee had that there were hundreds and thousands of other claims 
which must be presented, if no other means were prepared for their adjudi- 
cation, which induced them to bring in this bill. It is a bill which in its 
main features meets with the entire approbation of every member of that com- 
mittee. I say it was because the committee knew of the great number of 
claims which must come before it, and the long time which must elapse before 
the committee could adjudicate them, and the further time which must elapse 
before Congress could act <ipon them, and because they were aware of the fact 
that a great number of these claimants live far away from the capital, and 
cannot give their claims their personal attention, but must employ claim agents 
to look after them, whose fees would eat up the major part of the claims, and 
whose interest in the claims will induce them, by means of ex parte evidence, 
gotten up as they see fit, without any one to represent the Government in the 
preparation of the case, to make them larger against the Government than the 
honest claimants themselves would make them — I say it was because they 
were aware of these facts that they were induced to bring in this bill, believ- 
ing it would not only save the Government itself from unjust and exorbitant 
claims, but also provide a more convenient, a speedier, and a juster means of 
adjudication for the claimant. 

These claims might also go to the Court of Claim.s, but that court is already 
burdened with an immense amount of business. It is already occupied to the 
extent of its ability upon other claims of a different character. I have no 
doubt that a majority of these claims will come from beyond the Alleghanies, 
and the same objection lies to having them all submitted to the Court of 
Claims, in regard to the difficulty of the claimants presenting themselves be- 
fore said court, as lies in reference to the Committees of Claims of the House 
and Senate. 

It was in view of these facts, and because the committee felt it to be its 
duty to provide some fair, just, and speedy means by which the claims of 
loyal and honest claimants may be adjusted, that this bill was brought in. 
I say loyal, because this bill expressly excludes from its benefits all but lo3'al 
citizens, men true to the Government, men who have not failed to discharge 
their duty to their country, men who have suffered in their property by means 
of the action of their own Government, that Government which they intend 
hereafter, as heretofore, to support and preserve. And I hold that it is just 
that this provision should be in the bill. I hold that it is just that men who 



endeavor to break up the Government, to destroy the country, to destroy the 
rights, privileges, and property of the loyal men of the country, should not be 
entitled to come before any of its tribunals and ask that their losses, occa- 
sioned by the war which they have originated, should be made good to them. 

But, sir, the men who have stood true to the country, the men w^ho have 
given up their means and their property to support the army in the field, the 
men, loyal if they are, whose property has been taken by authority of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, without their consent, ought and should, by all 
the principles of justice, by all the precedents which this Government in its 
legislation has set, and by the very fundamental doctrine upon this subject 
laid down in the Constitution itself, have speedy redress at the hands of us, 
their Representatives. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I sought the floor not for the purpose of discussing the 
main features of this bill. It seems to me so proper that some measure of 
the kind should pass, that I think a discussion of the leading features entirely 
unnecessary. When this bill was introduced, on the 14th of April last, I 
submitted an amendment. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. I desire to inquire of the gentleman 
what classes of property he means to cover by this bill 1 Suppose a man 
owns property in a city which has been shelled, or property which, by a shot 
thrown in battle, has been destroyed ; does the gentleman mean that the Gov- 
ernment of the United States shall indemnify for that loss 1 

Mr. WEBSTER. Shot thrown by whom 1 

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. Thrown by our own troops. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, sir, the property M which this bill is designed 
to aflbrd indemnity is specified in the third section of the bill. If my friend 
from Massachusetts will read it, he will see what these classes of property are. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. I have read it without being able to 
find out, and that is the reason I asked the question. 

Mr. W^EBSTER. I beg leave to say to my friend from Massachusetts, 
that I do not believe the bill does cover that class of claims. The leading feature 
of the bill is, that it is intended to pay for such property as shall be taken 
by the authority of the United States, or by the authority cf some officer of 
the United States, for the use of the soldiers of the United States. If the 
gentleman will read the third section, he will see that it is restricted to prop- 
erty taken, occupied, or destroyed for the use of the troops of the United 
States, by the order of the commandant of the corps for whose use the same is 
occupied, taken, or destroyed. The gentleman will see that the class of cases 
to which he refers is nob included in this bill. 

Mr. NOELL. I wish to make a suggestion to the gentleman from Mary- 
land. I suggest to him that the provisions of the bill only require these 
commissioners to investigate and report their proceedings. Everything 
that they do under this bill has to undergo the supervision of Congress after- 
wards. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I have already stated that very fact. The buildings 
mentioned in the third section of the bill, and which are to be paid for by the 
Government of the United States if destroyed or injured, are buildings taken 
for the use and occupation of the troops of the United States. This bill does 
not even go so far as the bill of 181G Avent in regard to the destruction of 
houses and property, because that bill provided that buildings which were 
destroyed by the enemy in consequence of having been occupied or used by 
the troops of the United States should be paid for by the United States; and 
the legislation of Congress from that day to this has recognised claims of that 



6 



\ 



character. Congress lias never refused to pay them, and the files of this 
House and of the Committee of Claims are full of such cases. I repeat, then, 
that this bill is not as comprehensive and does not cover as many classes of 
claims as did the bill of 1816, passed after the last war. 

Again, as the gentleman from Missouri suggests, this commission is not a 
commission of final award. All that they can do is to examine cases, and when 
they have examined and determined upon them, their determinations, with all 
the proofs and with their opinions and conclusions, are to be reported to the 
Secretary of War, and he is to report the same to Congress, and the final ad- 
judication is here. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. Will the gentleman from Maryland allow 
me to ask him a question 1 

Mr. WEBSTER. With a great deal of pleasure, sir. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. I propose to the gentleman this inquiry : 
whether, under the existing law, if property is taken by the authority to 
which he has referred several times, a certificate is not given to the person 
from whom it is taken, and whether upon that certificate there is not ma- 
chinery already established by which he can receive indemnity ? I want to 
follow it with another question. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I am obliged to the gentleman from New York for 
asking me that question. I have to put an emphatic negative upon the the- 
ory which the gentleman seems to have in his mind upon that subject. I 
answer his question with an emphatic no. I know of my OAvn knowledge that 
in a great number of instances property has been taken by the command of 
officers of the Army in my own State, in which no certificate has been given 
and in which no redress can be had at the proper department here. I have 
gone myself with numerous claims, some of them from my own neighborhood, 
to the Quartermaster General's department — claims proved on oath by disin- 
terested parties before magistrates, and with the certificates of county clerks 
upon them to the ofiicial character of the magistrates — claims clearly and pos- 
itively proved, but because it had Jjeen impossible to get the proper vouchers 
from the accounting ofiicers in charge of the troops at the time, the depart- 
ment has referred the claimants, in every instance, to Congress for redress. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE. Will the gentleman permit me to say a word in an- 
swer to the gentleman from New Yorkl 

Mr. WEBSTER. In a moment. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. Will the gentleman allow me a moment? 

Mr. WEBSTER. T will give the gentleman the floor for a short time, if 
he desires it. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. I asked the gentleman one question, and 
he is answering another. 

Mr. WEBSTER, No, sir; I am on that very question. I say that there 
are a great many cases where property has been taken by the orders of com- 
petent authorities, the officers in command of troops, where no certificate of 
that fact has been given, and in which no certificate can be obtained- 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. I asked no such question as that. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Then I misunderstood the gentleman. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. The abuse of any law reflects very little 
light upon its scope or validity. I did not ask the gentleman what officers 
have done, in point of fact, in the State of Maryland. My inquiry was 
whether the law, as it now stands, does not provide that in cases where the 
commandant of a given district takes property for the use of the Army, he 
shall give to the person from whom it is taken a certificate of the fact. 



Mr, WEBSTER. I admit that what the gentleman states is the law, but 
itr- is a sad fact for many people that because officers of the Army cannot in 
some cases, and in other cases where they can, do not, discharge their duty 
and obey the law, they suffer thereby. 

Mr. ROSCOE CONKLING. I do not differ with the gentleman at all 
as to the proposition that he now states, that nobody should suffer because 
that law w-as disregarded ; but I put my question as a preliminary inquiry 
in order to ask him if he proposes by this bill to amplify the scope or multi- 
ply the classes of claims which are to be paid, or does he intend his bill to 
provide indemnity for those who ought to receive certificates if the law as it 
now stands were carried out ? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, I will say this to the gentleman : that it is not 
intended to provide by this bill that the proper accounting officers in the 
Quartermaster General's department shall have any other class of claims 
brought before them than that which now properly goes before them ; but the 
committee do intend to provide a tribunal before which honest loyal claimants 
may come with those classes of claims which they cannot have adjudicated 
before the department ; not, however, enlarging the principles upon the sub- 
ject of compensation to claimants which the Government has always recog- 
nised. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I will state this fact : neither the quartermaster's 
department nor the subsistence department will pay one dollar for supplies or 
for the use of property unless there was a contract made between the quarter- 
master and a man who seid up the claim before the property was taken or the 
services rendered. In cases where there was not a contract before the property 
was taken, the departments will not pay the claims. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I think, from the facts already stated, that the class 
of claimants provided for in this bill cannot get their claims settled by the 
proper accounting officers in this city. They would infinitely prefer that the 
proper accounting officers here should pay them. They would get their money 
sooner, and have less trouble in proving their claims. In every case where a 
claim has come to my knowledge, it has first gone to those officers, because 
the parties interested preferred to go there, and not being able to get the redress 
there to which they were entitled, they came to the Committee of Claims, the 
tribunal provided by this House for such cases. 

But, Mr. Speaker, as I before remarked, I did not rise to discuss the main 
features of this bill. When it was introduced by the chairman of the Com- 
mittee of Claims, I offered an amendment to it. That amendment is to the 
tenth and last section of the bill, which provides that the commissioners shall 
not take cognizance of any claim against the United States for the loss,_ value, 
or services of any slave or person of color. My amendment is to sti'ike out 
that part of the section, leaving in it, however, the provision that no person 
who has engaged or shall engage in the present rebellion against the Govern- 
ment of the United States shall derive any benefit under this act. I opposed 
that feature of the bill in regard to slaves in committee, and endeavored to 
have it stricken out, but the committee thought best to retain it. At the 
same time the committee agreed that I should have the opportunity of pro- 
posing my amendment in the House, and of having a vote of the House on it. 
Mr. Speaker, this is an unjust discrimination, in my opinion, against loyal 
men who have claims against the Government for services of their slaves. I 
am not speaking at present about compensation for loss of slaves. I do not 
believe, and never have believed, that this Government is bound to pay for 
runaway negroes. -If, in the march of our army through southern States, ne- 



^ 

8 ^ V 

groes ruYi awaj' with it, or if individual officers or privates in the army see fit 
to steal negroes from their masters, to whom they are individually responsible 
in the courts, and as much as they would be disgraced thereby, and should be 
punished by the Government as for any other theft, yet I do not believe that 
the Government is bound to pay for said slaves. So, too, if a loyal master 
puts his slave into the army in any capacity, and that slave is lost in battle 
or otherwise, I do not hold to the opinion that the Government is bound to 
pay for him. T know that, in years gone by, when reports from the Commit- 
tee of Claims came from southern men themselves, that committee and the 
House declined to pay for slaves killed in battle, when they were in service 
with the consent of their masters : the reason being that, when the master 
makes his contract for the service of his slave, he takes into consideration the 
risk of that service. He has a valid claim against the Government for wages 
for the service of his slave, but for nothing else. 

Now, is a fact known to everybody who knows anything about the army, 
that in all the wars in which this country has been engaged a great number 
of slaves have been employed ; some of them as servants to their owners, 
officers in the army, and the Government has always paid the master for 
their services. In many instances masters, who were not themselves in the 
army, have hired their slaves as teamsters and in other capacities. The 
Government has always recognised this class of cases through its proper offi- 
cers here. Suppose a case of this character arises, as it may and will arise, 
in which the proof may not be satisfactory to the proper ofiBcers here ; is it 
not fair to provide that the owner, having a valid claim, may go before a com- 
mission, as he might go before the Committee of Claims, and ask compensa- 
tion ? 

Now let me put a case as an illustration. Your illustrious pedecessor^ 
Mr. Speaker, a distinguished general now in the field, (General Banks,) re- 
cently found it necessary to fall back, in the face of the enemy, through the 
Shenandoah valley, till he reached the Maryland heights. Suppose that he 
had deemed it proper to erect fortifications there in a short space of time, 
and had called on the loyal slaveholders of Maryland to send their servants 
' to aid in the work ; and suppose that when this work was accomplished a 
forward movement of the array took place, and the quartermaster, or other 
officer whose duty it was to give certificates for the work, had been ordered 
forward suddenly and been killed in battle, by which the owners of the 
slaves were prevented getting their vouchers ; would Congress refuse compen- 
sation under such circumstances ? I ask, therefore, whether the commission 
provided for in this bill should not have the same class of cases before it for 
adjudication 1 

Let me put another case to you. It is necessary to move the forces of our 
army across a river. A loyal slaveholder owns a ferry and boats, and uses 
his slaves as ferrymen. The Government takes possession of the ferry-boats 
and the ferry-men, and have their troops carried across. The boats are 
overloaded and are lost, and the negroes themselves are lost. Now, without 
going into the question of compensation for the loss of the slaves, would not 
the Government be bound to pay for their services as well as for the loss of 
the property itself — the boats destroyed ? This is a hypothetical case as I 
put it, but it is a reality. There is an instance of it in the adjoining county 
of Prince George. A loyal slaveholder, owning but one slave, it is true, and 
him only for two years, he being a slave for a term of years, owned also a 
ferry-boat, of which the slave was ferry-man. The forces of the United 
States wanting to cross the river — the Potomac — took possession of the ferry- 



/ 



^ 



Bai. The ferry-man protested that they were overloading the boat, and that 
h could not reach the other side of the river with it. He protested against 
.going over with the boat so overloaded, declaring that his life and the lives of 
all of them would be lost in the attempt. He was willing to carry over as 
many men as the boat would hold, but the officer in charge compelled him to 
endeavor to take the boat across with all the n\en in it which the officer had 
put in. The result was the boat was sunk ; the ferry-man himself lost his 
life, together with the officer in charge and a number of soldiers. 

Now, I hold that in a case of that kind, the Government should not only 
pay for the service of the slave, but I go further, and hold that when an officer 
has thus impressed a slave against his consent, and consequently against his 
owner's consent, and has used him for the service of the Government, and that 
slave's life is destroyed, the Government should give fair and reasonable com- 
pensation to his owner for his loss, as well as for his services. You cannot 
apply to such a case the principle that applies to the other case that I have 
mentioned, namely, that he was in the service with the consent of his owner, 
and under a contract made by his owner which included the chances of his 
destruction. In this case he is impressed into the service, taken against his 
master's will, and I therefore hold that the Government is responsible for his 
loss. But in order to show, I think, the injustice of this section of the bill, 
it is not necessary I should rely on cases of this character. I am putting my 
objection now to the section upon this one simple question of service. It does 
seem to me so clear, so fair, so reasonable, that when I voluntarily hire my 
slave to the Government, and permit him to go into the Army in any capacity 
for the good of the country, I should have compensation for his services, that 
I think gentlemen cannot hesitate to adopt my amendment. I understand 
that there is some provision made by the War Department, some order of the 
War Department, in reference to paying for the services of the contrabands, 
as they are called ; that a statement of labor and wages is kept, of contra- 
bands coming into particular posts, and that, to a certain extent, the War 
Department has determined that in case of loyal owners, they shall have a 
claim against the Government for the wages of their slaves employed by that 
Department. 

But I am not speaking of that class of cases at all. I am speaking of slaves 
that are not contraband, or, in other words, are not fugitives ; of slaves that 
have gone into the service of the country by the consent of their owners, or by 
the compulsion of the Government without the consent of their owners. 

But I have another objection to that portion of the section, besides the fact 
that in excluding claims for the services of slaves you make an unjust dis- 
crimination against the loA^al men of the slave States. I object to it for the 
further reason that I want to see at least one bill pass this House that shall 
not have this question of slavery mixed up with it. My objection to this 
section of the bill springs not only from the fact that I think it discriminates 
unjustly against loyal slaveholders, but also from a general principle which 
has guided my action not only in this Congress and the preceding one, but 
which has also governed my entire political life, and that is, that all agitation 
or legislation by Congress on the subject of slavery, either for or against the 
interests of that institution, should be discountenanced by every lover of his 
country, as leading to sectional excitements, animosities and strife, and that 
as it is the right of the people of each State to determine for themselves 
the question of slavery within their own limits, so it is the wisest 
and safest policy to leave to them all discussion and agitation in refer- 
ence to it, either as to its benefits or its evils, its perpetuation or abolishment. 



10 



\ 



And I desire now to see this House progress with that legislation which I j^e - 
gard proper and necessary for the interests of the country, and not fritter 
away its time upon questions which are uncalled for and unnecessary, always i 
irritating and frequently mischievous. 

Why, sir, as far as this bill itself is concerned, I think it very doubtful whether, 
under the provisions of the third section — which determines the classes of 
claims to be considered by the 'commissioners — if the tenth section should be 
stricken out, any claim could be made for compensation for the loss or service 
of a slave ; and while I am not willing to ascribe unworthy motives to my 
colleagues on the committee, and say that they introduced this subject into 
the bill for the purpose of keeping up agitation, yet I will say that its chief 
effect will be to produce excitement and irritation, without the possibility of 
any good resulting from it. 

Mr. MAYNARD. Will my friend from Maryland permit me to ask what 
the meaning of this section is ? Is it the intention to provide that no slave or 
free person of color shall be employed by the Government ? The language is, 
" no claim for any slave or person of color." Now; I happen to know, as a 
matter of fact, that ^Jiere are many free negroes employed by the Government. 
If they have any property they are liable to lose it ; and if they have rendered 
services to the Government, certainly they ought not to be excluded from 
compensation. 

I will also say that we have in the military service of the United States, 
slaves, quite a number of them, with the consent and approbation oT their 
loyal owners, many of whom are serving with them. Now, I ask if it is 
treating them justly to take them from the service and support of the wives 
and families of these loyal men, and yet by our legislation deprive them of all 
compensation ? 

Mr. WEBSTER. I Avould be very glad to hear my friend, but as I have 
not much time left, I must interiupt him and proceed with what I have to say. 

Mr. MAYNARD. I desired to know the meaning of this clause of the 
bill. My friend, who is a member of the committee, I presume can explain 
it. I cannot understand it. 

Mr. WEBSTER. My construction of this clause of the tenth section 
agrees with that of the gentleman from Tennessee. I believe that under this 
portion of the section which I am seeking to strike out, no person of color, 
whether slave or free, can bring any claim before this commission for losses 
or services. The language of the section is plain and transparent. The sec- 
tion says that " the said commissioners shall not take cognizance of any claim 
against the United States for the loss, value, or services of any slave or per- 
son of color," of any negro, bond or free. I know this will appeal to the 
sympathy of some gentlemen on- the other side of the House. I know they 
will be disposed to strike out, at least, the words " or person of color," so 
that the free negro, or " person of color," may have no injustice done him. 
In my judgment, however, the best vray is to get rid of the whole subject ; to 
strike out the whole clause, so that injustice may be done to no man, whether 
he be the highest or the lowest in the la.nd. 

But, sir, to return to the subject I was discussing when interrupted by my 
friend from Tennessee, I have been always, and am especially now, against all 
discussion and agitation by Congress, on the subject of slavery ; and I did 
hope that when Congress assembled at the pi'esent session, it would, eschew- 
ing all subjects of irritation among the friends of the Union, devote itself to 
that legislation which was most conducive to the suppression of the rebellion ; 
to the crushing out of treason most foul and disgraceful ; to the protection of 



^ 11 

Union men in each and every State ; to the restoration of the Union, with the 
rights of States unimpaired ; to the vindication of the Constitution as the 
supreme hiw of the land ; and to the re- establishment of the Republic, in the 
midst of the nations and against the hopes and machinations of nobles and 
kings, upon its ancient foundations, never more to be assailed by traitors at 
home, ever more to be feared by enemies abroad. It was in this spirit, I feel 
convinced, we met in the extra session in July last. The President had de- 
clared this to be his purpose in calling out the military forces of the country. 
His Secretary of State, by his authority, had instructed our ministers so to 
declare to all the Governments to which they were accredited, and we our- 
selves, shortly after we met together, in the following resolution offered by my 
friend, the venerable statesman from Kentucky, [Mr. Crittenden,] and 
adopted by an almost unanimous vote, solemnly enunciated the principles which 
"would control our action and the purposes we sought to accomplish : 

" Resolved hy the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present 
deplorable civil war has bceu forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern 
States, 'now in arms against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the capital ; 
that in this national emergency. Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resent- 
ment, will recollect only its duty to the whole countrj' ; that this war is not waged on their 
part in any spirit of oppression, or for anj' purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of 
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to 
defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the 
dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ; and that as soon as these 
objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." 

Armed, sir, with all these facts — and more effective arms could not have 
been furnished to the loyal men of the border States for their fierce contest 
with disunion — I went home to my people, after the adjournment of the extra 
session, and in public meetings everywhere proclaimed to them that this Con- 
gress was imbued with a patriotic and catholic spirit ; that no inclination existed 
to interfere with any of their rights, but that the one, all-absorbing, all-con- 
trolling purpose was the restoration of the Union and the preservation of the 
Constitution. And when we returned to our places in this Hall in Decem- 
ber last, I expected and believed that Congress would ardently and uninter- 
ruptedly devote itself to this, and to no other work. But I must confess I 
have been disappointed. Day after day, week after week, and month after 
month, has this pernicious question of slavery been dragged into our deliber- 
ations, to irritate and divide the honest friends of the Union. I make this 
confession with great reluctance and with great regret. I speak not as a 
party man, nor in the interest of any party. Sir, the Union men of my State 
have cast to the winds all old party feelings. The bonds which formerly bound 
them to party organizations have been snapped asunder like the green withes 
upon the limbs of the sleeping Samson. Two parties only are found 
there now — the friends of the Union and the enemies of the Union ; the men 
who stand for the protection of the Government, for the upholding of its flag, 
and for the enforcem"nt of its laws, and the men who desire to see those laws 
set at defiance, that flag trampled in the dust, and that Government broken in 
pieces. I repeat, sir, these are the only parties in my State to-day, as they 
are the only parties in the other border States. 

Why, sir, look at the delegation from my State on this floor, and see how 
old party lines have ceased to exist. At the last Presidential election my 
friend who sits in front of me [Mr. Crisfield] voted for Breckinridge. My 
colleagues, the one who sits immediately in front of me [Mr. Calvert] and 
the one who sits behind me [Mr. Leary,] and myself, voted for Bell. My 
other colleagues [Mr. Thomas and Mr. May] voted for Douglas. The people 



of the State, when they came to send a delegation to Congress, selected men 
from all the old parties, and sent them here to deliberate and determine, not 
for party, but for that winch, is higher and holier than party, their country. 

Neither were we sent here as sectional men to labor and appeal only 
for the good of our own section, and our peculiar institutions. Sir, as you 
are aware, Maryland is a slaveholding State; but our people did not elect 
us to perpetuate slavery, as, I doubt not, your constituents did not elect 
you to destroy it. We were elected to labor and legislate for the good of 
the entire country, and to-day, if the Union men of Maryland believed that 
the institution of slavery stood between them and their country's good, 
between them and the preservation of the Union, without any intermeddling 
on your part, or tlie part of others, they would lay their own hands upon 
it and destroy it. They are willing to make any and all sacrifices that 
could be demanded of a patriotic people for so holy an object. 

But, sir, my people in their heart of hearts believe, as I believe, that this 
constant agitation of the question of slavery, this almost uninterrupted 
discussion of emancipation and abolition, is not at all conducive to the 
putting down of the rebellion and the preservation of the Union, They 
believe that, so far from being beneficial to the cause of the Union, it is, 
at this particular juncture of our aifairs, positively mischievous and de- 
structive. 

What good has been done to the country by all this agitation? Has it 
strengthened the bonds between men of the several sections of the Union? 
Has it united more closely the loyal men of the free States and the slave 
States ? Has it added to our forces in the field ? Has it w-eakened or 
destroyed the forces of our enemy ? Has it, in fine, aided your soldiers in 
achieving success for their country, and honor for themselves ? No, sir, 
no; it has done none of this. The victories which have crowned the armies 
of -the Republic, presaging, as they do, the final triumph of the Govern- 
ment, have been won, not by your legislation, but in spite of it, by the 
courage of your brave soldiers, and the skill and gallantry of their officers. 

Now, let us look at some of these acts of legislation with which we 
have been keeping up this agitation during the present session, and see 
- what necessity there was for them. You saw fit to adopt a new regulation 
for the United States 7i.rmy, that no officer should use the force under his 
command to return runaway slaves to their masters. That was entirely 
unnecessary. There was no officer in the United States Army wdio was 
using the force under him for any such purpose. There was no man in any 
of the slave States who desired that any officer should do it. Certainly, 
no loyal man of the slave States desired that any portion of tlie army 
sliould be taken from its legitimate duties for the purpose of hunting up 
fugitive slaves. 

Mr, BINGHAM. I hope the gentleman from Maryland wall let me in- 
terrupt him just at that point. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Tiie gentleman from Ohio must excuse me, as I have 
only ten minutes of my hour left. 

I repeat, there was no public necessity for such an army regulation. Its 
only efl'ect was to produce some little excitement here, and some little irri- 
tation in certain portions of the country at the time of its passage, I care 
nothing about it ; my people care nothing about it. It was a matter of 
no importance. Afterwards a bill was introduced into tliis House and 
passed, and I believe is now a law, prohibiting slavery in all the Territories 
of the United States. By that law you only re-enact the decree of the Al- 



mighty. You do no practical good, either to the wliite man or the negro, 
to the freeman or the slave. No sensible slaveholder ever -would have 
taken his slaves toany of our Territories. It is true, the prohibition in this 
bill is made to apply to territory hereafter acquired. But everybody knows 
that the terms upon which territory may hereafter be acquired will be de- 
termined at the time of its acquisition, and that the attempt on our part 
to fix conditions now is simply ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, I 
care not what conditions you fix to future acquisitions of territory, for I 
am against all such acquisitions. I hope the boundaries of tlie republic 
never will be further extended, either in tlie interest of slavery or free- 
dom. The gentleman who introduced this bill [Mr. Lovejoy] knew such 
legislation was not necessary to exclude slavery from the Territories, but 
he also knew it would produce irritation, excite discord, and keep alive 
sectional agitation ; hence it was too important a measure not to be in- 
troduced. 

What next was done ? You passed a bill, which has gone into effect, 
abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. The people of the District 
petitioned for no such legislation. The people of the country generally 
did not demand it. I do not perceive that any great amount of good has 
been done by it. It is true I see on tlie streets a greater number of idle 
negroes, dressed in Iiolidoy attire, but I cannot perceive any material dif- 
ference between Washington as a slave city and Washington as a free city. 
If gentlemen who exhibited so much interest in the matter feel more com- 
fortable now, I cannot say that I feel less so. 

Mr. LOYEJOY. Let me say a word. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I hope the gentleman will not interrupt me. I did 
not approve of this bill at the time of its passage. I do not approve of it 
now. I think it an act of injustice on the part of the Government to de- 
prive owners of tlieir property without their consent, and not give them a 
full consideration therefor. I think they ought to have been paid the fair 
and full value of their slaves, whether that value was one dollar or one 
thousand dollars each. And more than that, I think the passage of that 
bill was an act of bad faith toAvard the State of Maryland, which ceded 
this District to tlie General Government. It ceded this District certainly 
without any idea that slavery would be here abolislicd before it had been 
abolished in that State, or without the consent of that State. But the act 
has been passed, and I do not propose to reopen that question. It was 
irritating to the people of my State. It was irritating to the people of the 
District, It has been done, nevertheless. And although my people do not 
agree in the justice and wisdom of that legislation, still they are willing to 
submit to it. It is the law of the land, and they are willing to abide by it, 
as they have ever shown their willingness to stand by the law. 

But what ejffects have followed such legislation ? The people of the 
border States are becoming dissatisfied. They are unlmppy. They are 
appreliensive. They are losing confidence in Congress. They begin to 
fear that you intend to keep up this agitation at all times and under all 
circumstances, without regard to their wishes or interests, until their in- 
stitutions are entirely destroyed. It is for this reason, to quiet their ap- 
prehensions, to relieve their anxieties, to give them renewed confidence in 
the wisdom and moderation of Congress, that I propose to strike this sub- 
ject out of the bill. It is for this reason, too, that I appeal to gentlemen 
from the northern States to stop all further legislation on the subject. 
Surely you have already redeemed all the pledges you can have made to 



\ 

14 ^ 

your constituents on this question. You liave gone to the full extent of 
the Chicago platform. You have legislated against slavery wherever you 
have claimed the constitutional right of legislation. You have abolished 
it in this District, and have prohibited it from all the Territories. I tell 
gentlemen, in all sincerity, too, that while this kind of legislation is dis- 
tasteful to the loyal men of the border States, rendering them unhappy and 
apprehensive, it gives the liveliest satisfaction to the disunionists among 
them. They expect it to aid their sinking cause, to swell their diminished 
ranks, and to furnish some justification for their unholy cause. You^are 
thus giving " aid and comfort " to the enemies of the Union. 1 speak in a 
fraternal spirit. I desire to see peace, concord, harmony, earnest and 
hearty co-operation prevailing in the ranks of the Union. I know that 
we differ so widely in our views on this one question, and on it alone, that 
its agitation but leads to dissension, to discord, to alienation, and to divi- 
sion in those ranks. I repeat, then, let us have no more of it. I think 
the Union men of the border States liave some right to make this request; 
I think they have some claim on the moderation, the liberality, the con- 
fidence and support of their northern brethren. They .are engaged in the 
same great cause, I. trust, with them — the preservation and perpetuation of 
free constitutional government. They are, like tliem, pouring out their 
treasure in this great cause. For it they stand witli them on bloody battle- 
fields. For it, with them, they are achieving a common renown and filling 
common graves. 

It is true, Mr. Speaker, the Union men of the border States were ex- 
ceedingly anxious to avoid this conflict. Tliey did not rush thoughtlessly 
or gladly into this war. They were willing, ay, desirous of making every 
effort and every sacrifice, consistent with the nation's honor and its exist- 
ence, to prevent this fratricidal strife. History will tell with what zeal 
and earnestness they besought their embittered brethren of the Soutli not 
to lay violent hands upon the G-overnment which had never oppressed 
them, which, in all human probability, never would oppress them, and un- 
der which they had grown so great and prosperous. History will tell, 
too, with what earnestness they also appealed to their scarcely less embit- 
tered brethren of the North, peaceably and fraternally to remove all cause 
of real or imaginary complaint. 

It was natural, too, as it was proper, they should seek to avoid a con- 
flict, that they should hesitate to rush into war, horrid, internecine war, a 
war wliich would rage within their own borders, among friends and breth- 
ren and kindred, as well as between neighboring and sister States. Their 
animosities had not been excited by sectional contests, tlieir institutions 
were the same as that of their southern brethren, and the warmest sympa- 
thies and the kindliest affection existed between them. 

But notwithstanding all this, when the war was forced by the disunion- 
ists upon the country, when all question of a peaceable settlement of diffi- 
culties was passed, Avlien the only issue left for them was, shall the Union 
be destroyed, or shall it be preserved by the only means which could aq- 
complish it, the crushing out of rebellion by force, tlie Union men of the 
border States no longer hesitated. Moved by the purest patriotism, by 
the holiest love of country, they yielded not to the touching and seductive 
appeals of their southern brethren, but, rising above the aroused fears and 
prejudices and passions of their section, they took their unalterable posi- 
tion for the Union of their fathers, and are now striking in its behalf, though 
friends and kindred stand in their way. 



15 

' . 1 know, Mr. Speaker, that great misappreliension exists in the minds of 
jxiQ^j in reference to the amount of aid given the Government by the bor- 
dol States in this hour of peril and contest. Some indeed go so far as to 
gaf , that so far from assisting the Government they are an actual burden, 
leO^uiring armed occupation to keep them in subjection. How false is this 
opiviion, how unjust to the Union men of the border States, and how un- 
becoming to those who entertain it, let a few plain facts and figures deter- 
mine. 

In. the first place, I assert that the border States, in proportion to their 
loyal white population, have now more men in the field than any other 
class of States. Statistics prove it. By the census of 1860 there are 
2,741,271 white population in the States of Delaware, Maryland, Ken- 
tucky, Missouri, and Western Virginia — estimating Western Virginia at 
250,000. From these States we have, according to a report made to the 
Senate a few days since by the chairman of the Committee on Military 
Affairs of that body, [Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts,] and furnished from 
the Adjutant General's office, at this time 72,850 men in the field, or one 
in thirty-eight of our entire white population, secessionists and disunion- 
ists of every grade included. Take from this number one-third of the 
population for secessionists, sympathizers with secession, and men opposed 
to the war, as they say — and I think this is about a fair division — this will 
leave one in every twenty-five of the entire loyal white population 
in the army of the United States. Now, the northern States, with 
their white population of 18,683,530, have, according to the same re- 
port of Mr. Wilson, 531,413 men in the field, or one to thirty-five 
of their white population. Thus, gentlemen will perceive that these 
much-abused border States have almost as many men in the field in pro- 
portion to their entire white population as the northern States, and many 
more than the northern States in proportion to their loyal population. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Mr. WALTON obtained the floor. 

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. I ask that the gentleman may have 
leave to proceed. 

Mr. LOVEJOY. I object. 

Mr. WALTON. I will give the gentleman five minutes of my time. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I wanted to go somewhat further into the conduct of 
the Union men of the border States. 

Mr. WALL. I object. I do not want to hear the negro question dis- 
cussed here. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I am trying to get the negro out of this question ; 
and not only out of this question, but out of this House altogether. But 
to proceed. Not only have we put a larger number of men into the field 
in proportion to our population, excluding one-third for those who are not 
loyal to the Government, but 

Mr. WALL. I rise to a point of order. I object to the gentleman's 
going on. He has had his hour, and objection was made. 

The SPEAKER 2^ro tempore, (Mr. GoocH occupying the chair.) The 
gentleman is speaking five minutes, by unanimous consent, in the time of 
the gentleman from Vermont. The Chair overrules the point of order. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Union men of the border 
States are doing their full duty, not only in furnishing men, but in all other 
respects. 

Mr. WALL. I rise to a point of order. I made an objection to- the 



16 

gentlcmau proceeding immediately after the hour was up, and I "vrouldlj^e 
to know liow the gentleman has unanimous consent to proceed. 

The SPEAKER pro tem'pore. The gentleman from Maryland appt.j^jed 
to the gentleman from Vermont to allow him five minutes of his t\jne. 
The gentleman from Vermont consented to that, and the question was pul 
to the House whether the House would consent to it. Consent was unan- 
imousb- given. 

Mr. WALL. I objected myself. 

Mr. "WEBSTER. I trust, Mr. Speaker, these frequent and persistent 
objections will not come out of the five minutes so kindly given Die by ray 
friend from Vermont. But I must hurry on. 

We have given our men, we have also given our money. Every border 
State, I believe, has assumed through its Legislature, without hesitation 
and without murmur, to pay its full proportion of the direct tax. I saw 
it stated in one of the morning papers to-day that my own State had paid 
its quota into your Treasury — the second State to perform this duty. 

We have not only given our men and money, but, sir, everywhere through- 
out my State, in every village and neighborhood, the loyal women have 
their daily and weekly meetings — their Union relief associations — and arc 
making and contributing thousands and tens of thousands of dollars' worth 
of comforts and delicacies for your sick and wounded soldiers. And in 
the cit}' of Baltimore, which some gentlemen seem to consider but a vast 
Qjinip of treason, our fair women daily in large numbers visit the great 
military hospitals, and with personal assiduities and gentle ministrations 
alleviate, as far as possible, the pains and sufferings of your brave but un- 
fortunate soldiers; thus, sir, adorning their patriotism with the sweet 
works of charity and the holy offices of religion. 

The men who, with knowledge of all these facts, can throw doubt upon 
the loyalty of the great majority of the people of the border States, who 
can declare that they are kept in the Union simply by force, who can as- 
sert that all slaveholders are disloyal, know nothing of the patriotic spirit 
of the people of whom they speak, and have no correct appreciation of 
that duty which every good citizen feels to cultivate fraternal relations 
between every section of his common country ; but, enclosed in their own 
sectional and narrow-minded bigotry, they ascribe to all others who differ 
from them in opinion those very qualities which so highly distinguish 
themselves. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have given, particular and general, 
I trust the House will adopt my amendment, and strike out that part of 
the bill which discriminates against a great class of loyal citizens, a dis- 
crimination which is obnoxious to them, which they have not merited, and 
which, in my judgment, is illiberal, unfair, and improper. But if my 
amendment should not be adopted, I consider the bill, in its principal pro- 
visions, so important to the people who are demanding redress at our hands, 
that I shall feel it my duty to vote for it. 

Mr. Speaker, thanking my friend from Vermont for his courtesy in giv- 
ing me a portion of his time, I yield him the floor. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 701 559 6 • 



'.'^iitac- 



pH83 



N 



